Subject: Review: Jurassic Park III (2001)

From: Jerry Saravia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:48:38 -0000

JURASSIC PARK III (2001)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
July 19th, 2001

The ads proclaim that this is not just another a walk in the park. Indeed, it is
in fact a well-travelled path through the same damn park. Do not expect the
filmmakers of this latest snooze to know what it means to entertain the
audience. One, twice, maybe. The third time is not the charm. The diamond should
be cut ever so delicately so that it can still sparkle. Here, it is more like a
piece of charcoal. 

Let's consider the premise, if you wish to call it that of this latest sequel. A
kid is left alone in a Costa Rican island known as Site B or, to Jurassic fans,
Isla Sorna. Dr. Grant (Sam Neill), a survivor of the original "Jurassic" film,
is persuaded by a rich businessman, Paul Kirby (William H. Macy) and his wife,
Amanda (Tea Leoni), to go on a tour of the island, which happens to be infested
with dinosaurs. This is no ordinary tour since it turns out that the kid who is
HOME ALONE IN ISLA SORNA happens to be related to the Kirbys. Now Grant must
confront those sneaky velociraptors and other dangerous breeds of dinosaurs but
since he has field experience, he should have no problem. Only the Kirbys and
the other members of the tour (including Michael Jeter in a brief role who
brings some inkling of humor) are what Jeff Goldblum's Dr. Malcolm in "The Lost
World" referred to as "fruitcakes." 

That brief premise is a basic concept that can be described as a pitch to a
Hollywood studio executive. It is not the basis for a movie. It is just an
idea...but what else is there? Not much except countless scenes of dinosaur
carnage, loud Dolby-ized roars, hums and thumps, Tea Leoni overexemplifying her
screams and that is it. Some brief mention of genetic engineering holds some
interest but hardly enough since it is barely mentioned again. 

Joe Johnston ("The Rocketeer") takes over the directing chair but you, sir, are
no Steven Spielberg. Spielberg knew how much to show on screen and when to aim
for some brief over-the-top thrills. He also had the gift for imbuing us with
giddiness and a sense of wonder whenever a dinosaur popped up on screen.
Johnston, however, overdirects to the hilt as if he was back in "Jumanji"
terrain and he has a less than capable editor at the helm (where is Michael Kahn
when you need him?) Thus, the film feels disconnected and fruitless in the
second half as it shows a dinosaur attack, one-dimensional characters bickering,
another attack, more bickering, etc. In the last half-hour, the movie seems to
have one too many climaxes and never exactly arrives at a conclusion. Monotony
sets in early and it becomes a chore to sit through the movie, even at a
seemingly painless 90 minute running time. 

The first two "Jurassic Parks" were mindless monster movies to be sure but they
at least had a central theme and some sense of purpose. The first film was about
the danger of meddling with nature and packaging something unique to the masses
- it was a modern-day "Frankenstein" tale. The second film had a more ecological
theme, and an understanding of how animals nurture and care for their young.
This movie (not based on any novel by Michael Crichton) is about nothing. There
is no theme, no sense of purpose and little in the way of ingenuity except to
show how life-threatening it is to be trapped in an island of untamed dinosaurs.
Why are we back at Isla Sorna, the same island from the last picture? Why not
take the dinosaurs to New York City to be exhibited only to then run rampant
around the city? A more modern approach to "King Kong" would have ended the
series with a bang rather than a whimper. And why leave Laura Dern hanging in a
thankless cameo?

"Jurassic Park III" has one or two scary sequences that recall the thrill and
intensity of the first film. It is also modest fun for a while seeing William H.
Macy maintain a straight face throughout. Still, other actors are left to appear
as gaping idiots, particularly Leoni who grates the nerves and Sam Neill, who
seems to be coasting by with nary a trace of the humor or pathos he brought to
the original. In short, this is a soulless, joyless movie bereft of
three-dimensional characters or a strong, compelling story or theme.  It is
decidedly no walk in the park. 

Footnote: *SPOILER* Sam Neill and Laura Dern turn out to be divorced this time
out, though she has kids and is remarried. At the end of the first film, they
were happily married. What happened to them since? It could have provided some
illumination on Neill's Dr. Grant character at least. 

For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at
http://moviething.com/members/movies/faust/JATMindex.shtml 

E-mail me with any questions, complaints or general comments at [email-masked]
or at [email-masked]

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 28868
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 236665
X-RT-TitleID: 1108705
X-RT-SourceID: 875
X-RT-AuthorID: 1314